On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 2:47 PM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 2:42 PM Bertrand Drouvot > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 01:44:43PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 12:50:38AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:11 PM Bertrand Drouvot > > > > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 03:44:34PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote: > > > >> > Unless I am misinterpreting some details, ISTM we could rename this > > > >> > column > > > >> > to invalidation_reason and use it for both logical and physical > > > >> > slots. I'm > > > >> > not seeing a strong need for another column. > > > >> > > > >> Yeah having two columns was more for convenience purpose. Without the > > > >> "conflict" > > > >> one, a slot conflicting with recovery would be "a logical slot having > > > >> a non NULL > > > >> invalidation_reason". > > > >> > > > >> I'm also fine with one column if most of you prefer that way. > > > > > > > > While we debate on the above, please find the attached v7 patch set > > > > after rebasing. > > > > > > It looks like Bertrand is okay with reusing the same column for both > > > logical and physical slots > > > > Yeah, I'm okay with one column. > > Thanks. v8-0001 is how it looks. Please see the v8 patch set with this change.
JFYI, the patch does not apply to the head. There is a conflict in multiple files. thanks Shveta
